Interviews, Interviews, and More Interviews
I am swamped with job interviews for the next two days. I am interviewing candidates, not being interviewed. It sounds like fun, but it is not, for many reasons, mostly because I am not a fan of the job interview.
We all convene in a meeting room with an oval table, the five interviewers having chosen a good seat, and the interviewee left to take whatever seat is offered to them. In the office we formerly used, the candidate was forced to stare into the sun, while we all sat comfortably, with the sun to our backs. It reminded me of the interrogation parts of Darkness at Noon.
Resumes are full of lies, or maybe I should say exaggerations. Mine is and I am sure yours is too. If we don't exaggerate and manipulate the truth, we would all appear to be normal, uninteresting, and completely lacking in talent. I don't really have a problem with that, but I do have issues with the interview process and references.
Personally, I think the job interview is a waste of time. Surely, it would make much better sense to work with the person for a few weeks, and then have a conversation about whether they ought to be permitted to stay in the job. An hour long meeting can't be a good way to determine if an individual is a proper fit for the job and the organization. I realize that there can be probationary periods (we have a lengthy one here) but everyone has passed the reviews at six months, twelve months, eighteen months, or twenty-four months. Once you are in, you are in like Flynn.
Instead, we ask them questions. Some employers request presentations, but even that is not good, if you ask me. Interviews are excellent for putting people on the spot, but these days, most people can anticipate the questions. Interviews are polite, formal, and useless. We, as interviewers, never speak our minds and say things like: "wow, that was a dumb answer."
Which brings me to references. Why do we bother to check references? What candidate would list a person who would give them a bad reference? Of course we all list people who will say good things about us. When you add the risk of legal action that some people have taken against those who have given a bad reference, I wonder why we bother with the whole process. The possibility of legal action caused so much concern that one of my former references said she couldn't even speak frankly to potential employers for fear of some sort of legal reprisal. I think we should stop the whole reference thing.
But, I am on the committee, so I will ask my questions over and over. I just have time for lunch, and then I am back in the room...
5 comments:
I've also wondered about the whole checking references thing. It just seems silly because, as you said, who would put down someone who won't give them a glowing review? My current boss even told me he wasn't going to check my references because it was a waste of time.
Interviews probably give the candidates a better chance to examine a potential workplace than vice versa. When I was job searching recently, I considered the interview process to be about me deciding where I do/n't want to work. When I interviewed at one institution and the library director reminded me of the library director in Pleasantville, I almost ran screaming form the interview mid-day. I went home and sent a polite thanks but no thanks letter.
That's a good point, Liz. I almost forgot about that.
References can be interesting when you look at *who* is a reference and, more importantly, who isn't.
And the language they use if they provide a letter of reference.
k: Yes, I see your point about who is or isn't a reference. That makes sense.
Post a Comment